Five Books Nobody Should Read

[billl]

dfloyd, I think that it might be worth pointing out that the post preceding yours wouldn't really deserve such criticism. In my opinion, anyhow. You were probably referring to others, but the timing seems unfortunate, perhaps especially so if there's any merit to what you're saying.

[OrphanPip]

bill,

When I read Morrison or Ellison, I do not condemn these authors for making their white characters two dimensional idiots of one sort or another. I accept their narratives from within the world they are creating.

I am not telling any minority reader to shrug off history, but to simply state "this is a racist text" without any degree of contextualism, to me is almost as limiting as remaining silent in the face of true demagoguery, sorry. There are countless of narratives, classic and commercial alike, where the civilized man is integrated into the indigenous native society. Tarzan. Dances With Wolves. Richard Harris in A Man Called Horse. Treasure Island. The Man Who Would Be King. Even The Jungle Book, for that matter, is a relative metaphor for man integrating within the natural world. To castigate Conrad for taking this theme and standing it on its head to explore the corruption it causes is simply too one dimensional and a disservice to any lover of literature.

Sometimes this forum makes me feel like I actually did go to Harvard, which says something in and of itself, since I had a fair 1980's university education, nothing extraordinary.

I am not confusing any posters, simply pushing back on the imperative to brand the text as worthless due to bigotry. At the moment, I am out of patience, and I leave luke on his own to temper the reactionaries, O multitude.

I never implied that Conrad should be discarded. In fact, I said that he should be read and that Hear of Darkness is a good text. Moreover, I completely disagree with your interpretation of Achebe's criticism. I can appreciate that Achebe employs some ad hominem attacks and does display perhaps too much antagonism towards Conrad. However, I can't help but agree with Achebe that the African characters are thoroughly dehumanized. Should we be praising Conrad for merely making the observation that Africans shouldn't be treated like animals? I realize we can't blame him for not being far beyond his time, but central to Achebe's criticism is that much of the prejudiced images of Africa that appear in Conrad's work continue to be prominent in the western imagination. Just because Conrad's racism is forgivable within context doesn't mean we shouldn't address its implications.

[OrphanPip]

I still think Ayn Rand sucks.

[MGK]

I still think Ayn Rand sucks.

no problem, as its your opinion, as long as you've come to that conclusion by reading one of her books.

[Red-Headed]

I still think Ayn Rand sucks.

LOL ... There is a certain honesty in that statement. I respect your opinion.

[dfloyd]

before the internet, before PCs, I thought Ayn Rand sucked, and I stll do.

[MGK]

before the internet, before PCs, I thought Ayn Rand sucked, and I stll do.

no problem, as its your opinion, as long as you've come to that conclusion by reading one of her books.

quotes are characters, you stupid forum

[Jozanny]

I never implied that Conrad should be discarded. In fact, I said that he should be read and that Hear of Darkness is a good text. Moreover, I completely disagree with your interpretation of Achebe's criticism. I can appreciate that Achebe employs some ad hominem attacks and does display perhaps too much antagonism towards Conrad. However, I can't help but agree with Achebe that the African characters are thoroughly dehumanized. Should we be praising Conrad for merely making the observation that Africans shouldn't be treated like animals? I realize we can't blame him for not being far beyond his time, but central to Achebe's criticism is that much of the prejudiced images of Africa that appear in Conrad's work continue to be prominent in the western imagination. Just because Conrad's racism is forgivable within context doesn't mean we shouldn't address its implications.

Orphan: I can respect your argument, but do not have time to address it this evening, and this is not the thread for it.

My displeasure, however, came from my concern over reactionary finger pointing (not that you are doing this) which tends to shut down mature debate. My professor made us study Conrad and Achebe side by side, and while I appreciated his sense of fair play, or even his sense of wry humor, it seems the two men are now forever joined at the hip, and I am not sure either Conrad or Achebe are served by the fusion of their opposing poles.

One day I may pick up on it in the author's list, but I have repeatedly read the novella, and I am not writing any papers on it. My mind is on other things.

[juhuulian]

I am genuinly mortified that no one has mentioned the most terrible, boring book of all:
The Phone book

[Red-Headed]

I am genuinly mortified that no one has mentioned the most terrible, boring book of all:
The Phone book

I think mathematical logarithmic table books beats the phone book. However both are more interesting & original than Dan Brown (& less predictable).

[Mathor]

1. Terry Goodkind books
2. Battlefield Earth
3. Atonement (terrible book adapted into an AMAZING movie)
4. Where The Red Fern Grows
5. The Giving Tree

you can have a successful and happy literary life and never ever try these books out.

[The Comedian]

5. The Giving Tree
you can have a successful and happy literary life and never ever try these books out.

Nice call Mathor -- if there is one book I hate reading to my kids, it's this one. The jerk in The Giving Tree needs to be hung by a tree that ain't so givin'. The last time I read it, I read it to my daughter who was four at the time. I was getting near the end and I start to cry. She looks at me, puzzled.

"Why are you crying?" she asks.

"Because he's so mean to this tree" I say.

"But the tree loves him" she says.

"Promise me you'll never, ever love anyone this way" I say (knowing she doesn't understand).

"What way?" she ask.

"You don't need to be a stump to anybody" I say.

"Keep reading" she says

So I do.

Man I hate that book. I mean -- what's the moral of that book?: the nature of "true love" perhaps. And what choices does it give us? That true love is either being a spineless chump (the tree) or a self-serving ******* (the kid) -- no kid needs to hear that. Hell, most adults don't need to hear that either. Just writing this makes me want to answer my daughter's question a different way. "Why am I crying"? -- I say "because this book shows you two ways to love and they're both wrong. The tree is no good and the boy is certainly no good. But I feel sad for both of them. But I know that I shouldn't. Or maybe I should. I don't know. But what ever it is, kid, this book shows you how not to love, but it seems like it's telling you that this is the way love goes. And it's wrong. It's just wrong."

There. That feels better.

[Modest Proposal]

Nice call Mathor -- if there is one book I hate reading to my kids, it's this one. The jerk in The Giving Tree needs to be hung by a tree that ain't so givin'. The last time I read it, I read it to my daughter who was four at the time. I was getting near the end and I start to cry. She looks at me, puzzled.

"Why are you crying?" she asks.

"Because he's so mean to this tree" I say.

"But the tree loves him" she says.

"Promise me you'll never, ever love anyone this way" I say (knowing she doesn't understand).

"What way?" she ask.

"You don't need to be a stump to anybody" I say.

"Keep reading" she says

So I do.

Man I hate that book. I mean -- what's the moral of that book?: the nature of "true love" perhaps. And what choices does it give us? That true love is either being a spineless chump (the tree) or a self-serving ******* (the kid) -- no kid needs to hear that. Hell, most adults don't need to hear that either. Just writing this makes me want to answer my daughter's question a different way. "Why am I crying"? -- I say "because this book shows you two ways to love and they're both wrong. The tree is no good and the boy is certainly no good. But I feel sad for both of them. But I know that I shouldn't. Or maybe I should. I don't know. But what ever it is, kid, this book shows you how not to love, but it seems like it's telling you that this is the way love goes. And it's wrong. It's just wrong."

There. That feels better.

I understand most of your complaint, but wonder if we are letting our frustration with the world's flaws cloud what might be the author's attempt at dealing with a spiritual concept. I think the issue is seeing the tree as an individual rather than an abstract.

Maybe this is how it is meant. The tree's joy doesn't come from standing on a hill, or holding out branches, or casting a shadow, but in enriching other lives. Now surely, the tree can be used--as we see so often in life--by those willing to take and take and take, but does this diminish the joy felt by the tree in giving of itself? I think the frustration is from an outside perspective, we see injustice and are galled by it. We imagine the indignation that the tree must feel at beind so perfectly self-less and still being asked for more. But I think the point is that above: that giving is exactly what the tree wants.

I think the issue comes when we try to apply this ideal to a flawed humanity. How can a person be like that? Should they even try? I think in some way, this is what Dostoevski was getting at in the Christic figure of "The Idiot."

So in the end, I think you are right to be wary of reading it to young ones. I don't want to encourage my own daughter to give herself up like that to one who will just use her. But I think the author is trying to get at something that is not neccessarily "wrong" as much as complicated and abstracted.

[Pryderi Agni]

I still think Ayn Rand sucks.

Well, power to your elbow for saying that! I happen to agree with ya!!

Besides that, I also think Austen's Pride and Prejudice deserves to be burned. A trashier book has never been written.

[Red-Headed]

Besides that, I also think Austen's Pride and Prejudice deserves to be burned. A trashier book has never been written.

I'm a bit reluctant to burn books, but I hear that it makes excellent ballast for ships.

I keep promising myself I will learn to love Jane Austen in time. It seems to be taking a bit longer than I expected...